* Damage to the left leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer was noted as well. Investigators found acrylic in the puncture, consistent with a window pane.
And:
* The aircraft remained properly pressurized throughout the flight.
Are not mutually incompatible? (i.e. a window pane hit the tail in flight and somehow the aircraft remained pressurized?)
There are three window panes on a commercial plane. The outside pane maintains pressure, while the middle one is a failsafe in the event the outside pane fails (the inner pane is cosmetic and to prevent people from messing with the important panes).
Without reading the report, the outside pane could have failed and hit the stabilizer while the middle pane continued to hold pressure as expected, therefore no contradiction in the two statements.
You need to pump air into a plane to provide oxygen. That implies that you need to let air out. The pressurisation system in planes is able to deal with a moderate amount of air exiting the aircraft without losing pressure, and the lower the altitude the easier that is.
You can have a hole the size of a quarter with no effect on cabin pressure.
This is why the fear that a bullet fired in the airplane will pop it like a balloon is unfounded. Poking a hole in the fuselage won't do anything. A bullet would have to hit and disable something critical (and there's always a backup for critical parts).
Not oxygen, air. The outflow valves on modern aeroplanes are almost the size of the windows themselves. They would progressively close to maintain cabin pressure.
As far as I understand it, there are several layers that make up an airplane window, the one in the middle is the vital one and the extra layers on either side have other purposes.
In this incident, the outer frame had melted and the outer pane had separated from the rest but the central layer was OK at that point in time.
the cabins of airplanes are actively pressurized by pumping air in, and constantly removing some air so carbon dioxide doesn't build up. The pumping that feeds the replacement air could be higher capacity than the flow through a missing window.
pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft (3810m) so the air pressure differential at 15000 is not likely to be that great.
> pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft
Well, no. I don't think cabin altitude for passenger airliners has ever been that high, so you need pressurization much lower than that (typically starting around 6000 ft for modern aircraft).
Edit: Even the Boeing 307 Stratoliner was pressurized to 8000 ft.
Pilot here - it's legal to fly at 12,500 in an unpressurized aircraft indefinitely. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F.... Cabin pressurization is set to a lower altitude, but that's not for a legal requirement. It's just nicer to be at higher pressurization.
And, I mean, think about it - there are _towns_ at 9k+ feet.
In what way is the content of your comment strengthened by waving about a PPL? It serves only the patronize. Excise it, what does it change?
Similarly, assuming that most of the audience here, aviation knowledge or not is unaware that there are mountains with people.
Anyway, passenger cabins require 8,000 ft for normal operation, so it's a bit misleading to say there's no legal requirement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841. (And yes, I know the difference between airworthiness and operations, still misleading). Also why I'd bet a good sum you're a PPL.
I'm not even in the US; you're barking up the wrong tree. I apologize for disclosing a relevant fact. Won't happen again. Thanks for the link to CFR25.
* Damage to the left leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer was noted as well. Investigators found acrylic in the puncture, consistent with a window pane.
And:
* The aircraft remained properly pressurized throughout the flight.
Are not mutually incompatible? (i.e. a window pane hit the tail in flight and somehow the aircraft remained pressurized?)